Device signals: what they prove and what they only suggest
The same signal that catches an operator running forty accounts also flags a family sharing one laptop.
Outline. Each heading below carries one line saying what the section has to establish. Expand each into two to four paragraphs, put at least one number or worked example in the piece that nobody else could publish, then delete this note.
Device signals are the most confident-sounding evidence in panel fraud work and the easiest to over-read. The same pattern has an innocent explanation often enough to matter.
What a fingerprint is, and what it is not
A probabilistic join, not an identity. State the error rate shape without inventing a figure.
Shared households are common and look like account farming
Two adults, one laptop, overlapping sessions. Say how you tell them apart.
Data-centre and proxy traffic: closer to proof
Why this one can support a removal where others cannot, and the exception for corporate VPNs.
Signals that only justify a closer look
Timezone mismatch, language headers, a new device. Each has a dull explanation.
Combining weak signals does not make a strong one
Three probabilistic flags multiply their false positives too. This is the section most guides skip.
What a person can contest, and how
A removal on evidence nobody will explain is not quality control. Describe the appeal route.
-
Fraud and inattention are not the same problem
One is somebody trying to take money from you. The other is somebody answering your survey on a phone at a bus stop. Treating them alike costs you the second one.
5 min read -
Consent that survives an audit
A consent record has to answer four questions years later. Most consent flows can answer two of them.
1 min read -
Recruitment sources, ranked by how much fraud they carry
Where a panel member came from predicts their behaviour better than almost anything you can measure once they are inside.
1 min read
